A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 41. 

Further, where there has been no timely response to a Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2031.300.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of "good cause" is required.¿ 

Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (a), provides that “[o]n receipt of a particular response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete[;] (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.”¿¿Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise the propounding party waives the right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b).) 

Here, Plaintiff request this Court order Geico to respond to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. The moving papers attest to the facts that Defendant had failed to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests as of the time the motions were filed, and requested this Court for an order compelling Geico to respond to the propounded discovery requests and produced the requested documents, without objections, and with verified responses. The RFA motion seeks to have the admissions deemed admitted.  However, there has been a recent change in circumstances.  Defendant’s current counsel submitted a declaration in opposition on March 27, one day before the hearing, attaching the verified responses without objections and stating that the belated discovery responses were served on March 26, 2024, two days before the hearing on these motions to compel.  Per Mr. Leos’ declaration, he did not learn of the subject discovery until March 19, 2024 even though his office became replacement counsel of record for Geico on January 29, 2024.  Given that these discovery motions had only been filed on January 25, there may have been some delayed communication between current and former defense counsel regarding the pending motions.  Setting aside the issue of the reasons why current defense counsel did not obtain the full file or otherwise learn of the pending discovery requests (and the motions) until March 19, the record before the Court indicates that current defense counsel acted with reasonable diligence thereafter in providing what the four discovery motions primarily sought, which are the requested discovery responses.  Accordingly, the motions to compel initial responses are mooted and the motion to deem RFAs admitted is mooted. 

Sanctions must be imposed against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the party acted with a substantial justification or that other circumstances would make the imposition of sanctions unjust.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c); see also Code Civ. Proc., § 708.020, Law Revision Commission Comments [“if the judgment debtor fails to answer interrogatories without substantial justification, sanctions may include an award of attorney’s fees”].)¿California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

For each of the three motions, Plaintiff has requested sanctions in the amount of $2,060/per motion ($8,240 total) to be paid to Plaintiff by the Geico.  While it appears that the discovery motions were necessary to trigger some type of response from Geico, it appears to the Court that it may have been the mistake or prior counsel that led to the need for these motions, and the amount sought seems a bit excessive.  The Court is inclined to continue the hearing as to the monetary sanctions only and allow Geico’s current counsel to try to negotiate a fair and reasonable amount bearing in mind the unusual circumstances and the apparent lack of fault by either Geico or current counsel for the delay in obtaining initial responses to this initial discovery.